Talk:Anglo-Spanish War (1654–1660)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration
WikiProject icon Anglo-Spanish War (1654–1660) was created or significantly enhanced by WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration, a project to leverage research efforts on the Reference Desks into a more lasting contribution to the encyclopedia. If you would like to help, please consider joining us.
See original question.

British-Spanish relations[edit]

British-Spanish relations is the current UK Collaboration of the Fortnight. This will no doubt be of interest to some people who have this page on their watchlists. Secretlondon 13:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that by this point England was described as under the Cromwellian Protectorate, no longer referred to as Commonwealth in the strictest sense...


This is written as if we know that Cromwell just decided on his own to enter a major war for only one reason. Even if that's true I can't imagine how it would be possible to know it unless Cromwell said something in public like, "I got us into the war entirely on my own initiative and only to rob the Spanish colonies." Maybe someone better at writing than I am could rephrase it to acknowledge that different people in England could have different motives for the war and one person could have more than one motive at the same time.

Abu America (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Cromwell actually discussed his motivations pretty candidly and at length with his Council of State prior to getting involved. See The Clarke Papers edited by C.H. Firth in the Royal Historical Society's published manuscripts. Basically, he felt that war with either Spain or France was inevitable, and that the two nations needed to be kept from allying with each other at all costs. Catholic Spain was a greater enemy to Protestantism than France, and fighting against Spain would theoretically pay for itself, especially if the Plate Fleet was captured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Result of war[edit]

There does not seem to be a clear victor in this war. And the editors involved in that section need to stop edit warring with constant reverts see: WP:3RR and WP:RV. Use this talk page to come to a consensus based on sources. Include direct quotations to support references to contended conclusions not just page numbers.Tttom1 (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur; I have made it clear from sources that I have used. I quote Copper: Her (England's) achievement had altered the balance of power in Europe and was part of the process whereby power was being concentrated in North West Europe at the expense of the Iberian and Mediterranean states clearly reads at least with the word achievement as being a Strategic English victory. I would like to see what sources explains for Spain's achievements in the war. Bruich (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Edit warring needs to be stopped whether you think you are right or not. I see from your other contributions that you are violating the 3 revert rule in several articles where another editor has disagreed with you.Tttom1 (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
As far as info box results here: Your quote does not state a 'victory' but achievement in a general sense and would need to be explained further, precluding its use in the info box. the Rodger in Command doesn't agrree: p.28, "In strategic terms, a largely unsuccessful war pushed Cromwell towards France." He goes on to explain on p.28-29 that England's gains were meagre and temporary while their costs were bankrupting the state. The goal of the nation (Cromwell and the army in this case), at the time, must be considered and there is a religious aspect here as well. The policy in Military Hist new info box is that if the result is not clear, it should be left blank or referred to the aftermath or result section of the article where the differing questions of the result can be expressed fully.Tttom1 (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Spain had long been war weary, exhausted and wracked by internal division, its fleets rundown. Cromwell is the little thug who sees his chance to put the boot into somebody who's already down and then crow about it. To blow it up into England tilting the balance of power or causing the war to turn sour for the Spanish, long after it had done so, is misleading nonsense. In the context of international realpolitic one cannot fault Cromwell for seizing the opportunity. But it had been obvious, long before his involvement, during the last years of the 30 years war and throughout the Franco-Spanish war 1635-1659 that Spain was a power on the slide. Does anybody really think that if Cromwell hadn't become involved that the course of history at that stage would have been much different? LOL! Provocateur (talk)

Israel pg.312?[edit]

That sound like a petty excuse for a proud Spanish person to try and deny a defeat in a war, why would a book with the headings israel, focus on a war between two irrelevant countries battling in the Caribbeans, there's more references saying a English victory than indecisive, we have to put up with Spain saying the Anglo-Spanish war in the 1500s was favorable to Spain, when it was pretty much indecisive, why don't the people on here just admit that it was an English victory, the Same user by the name of El Buffon has been doing nothing on Wikipedia but Editing English victories as Indecisive, I once went into an edit war with him on the siege of Gibraltar 1727, were he kept erasing British victory and putting called of by Spain, I think it's best this man be blocked and his account suspended, he clearly has Anglophobic feelings86.186.3.245 (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Could sound like anything, but what it is - is edit warring and not confined to a one particular editor. Wk policy is: don't edit war. Milhist policy is: controversial results should be left blank in info box and the different views expressed in the body of the article, with sources. By the way, info box shows France and England allied and my recollection is France makes out pretty good in this war, much better than England or Spain, but whatever the case, France should be included in any results so that it doesn't sound too overtly anglophile.Tttom1 (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The policy in Military Hist new info box is that if the result is not clear, it should be left blank or referred to the aftermath or result section of the article where the differing questions of the result can be expressed fully.Tttom1 (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC) It has been agreed on the highest level, thus I think it's pointless to give undue weight to a claim of "victory" when the only source which claim in an explicit way such outcome makes the caveat that this victory was "costly". The other sources use the word "success" quite more ambiguous and generally refering to specific achievements during the war, not to the war itself.--Darius (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Success Achievement victory are all enough to say that it was a victory whether it is costly or not. If so then it could be called 'costly' victory or partial. Let's not forget that Jamaica, (despite Western Design failure) Dunkirk, Mardyke were all given to England. Also that the war didn't officially end until 1670 when the treaty of Madrid was signed. If so then the infobox should be left blank as there seems to be a conflict of interest involved.Foob (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
As such it seems that the raids by Christopher Myngs and Henry Morgan should be included in the infobox & campaignbox since they were given letters of marque by the then governors of Jamaica Edward D'Oyley and Thomas Modyford covertly approved by King Charles II Foob (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Partially agreed. We should left the the infobox blank because conflict of sources (not our own opinions:)). Certainly, Myngs and Morgan raids should be included, definitively. My concerns with the word 'victory' is not about synonyms, it's because a majority of (cited) sources claims partial or circumstantials "successes", while pointing out to the raising (or resurgence) of England as a major naval power. I will remove both results entries. leaving only the territorials gains made by England. Do you thinks it's OK now?. Thank you.--Darius (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Already done, happy editing ;).--Darius (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed! Indeed, sorry I just don't like untidy infoboxes. If you can contribute; feel free, as I know little about it myself and this is unknown territory for me and it is interesting history. Regards Foob (talk) 19:50 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Foob. If you have any doubts regarding WP, feel free to ask me. Cheers. Darius (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

How to Claim Three Battles in One[edit]

Corrected the claim that Blake's destruction of the "Spanish West Indian Fleet" and his destruction of the convoy at Santa Cruz were seperate events - repeated here three times. The "Spanish West Indian Fleet" was a convoy, or so called "treasure fleet" of heavily armed merchant vessels. Obviously previous editors thought it was a fleet of warships patrolling the West Indies and seperate from the convoy destroyed in the Canary Islands. The result, a victory claimed for Blake in West Indian waters against the "Spanish West Indian Fleet" and two claimed in "European waters", including one at Santa Cruz. (Can Santa Cruz in the Canaries really be called "European waters"?)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved.ΛΧΣ21 01:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Anglo-Spanish War (1654–60)Anglo-Spanish War (1655–60) – This war began in 1655. The attacks on Santo Domingo and Jamaica, both in 1655, provoked the war. No actions were fought in 1654. There is no reference to 1654 that I can see. See [1] for more. Relisted. Favonian (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC). King Philip V of Spain (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support as proposed. Red Slash 16:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The expedition began in December 1654 and many sources do date the beginning of the war to 1654, when the "Western Design" was put into effect. Western Design redirects here. Srnec (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment Since war had not been declared, the beginning of the war should be when the English actually attacked the Spanish, not when they left England. Also, please list the sources that you say do date the beginning to 1654. Thanks King Philip V of Spain (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
This source says 1654–59. Did any action occur in 1660 before the peace treaty? Srnec (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Not that I know of, though since the peace treaty had not been signed (and therefore the war was not officially over yet), there must have been minor naval actions and privateer attacks. King Philip V of Spain (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.